Brushing Up on Math with Web2.0 tools: Wikispaces, PBworks, Diigo, and Voicethread 29 November, 2011 Blyn Holt Bemidji State University Educational Psychology ED-5350 Foundations of American Education ED-5100
Abstract:
The use of Web2.0 tools gives teachers and students a way to engage and create while learning. The Brush Up on Math wikipage was created to help students refresh their memories on math concepts that may have been forgotten. It is to be used as a collaborative reference tool. The Web2.0 tools used on this project are Wikispaces, PBworks, Diigo and Voicethread. The justification for this project is based on Standards of Effective Practice for licensing Minnesota teachers. Research has also supported use of Web2.0 tools, especially for distance learning and collaborative learning.
Although math is all around us it is not something that students consciously use every day. This wikipage gives resources for students to review math concepts that they may have forgotten due to a lapse in use. A wikipage is an editable web page sharing information. The particular lesson plan addressed on this wikipage is complex numbers. The other Web2.0 tools incorporated on this site are a link to Diigo, bookmarking site that contains links to other useful sites to review math concepts, a link to a wikispace page explaining the justification for this project, and a link to voicethread.com containing a bibliography of Blyn Holt, my nom de cyperspace. A voice thread is audible way to share information and receive feedback. There is also a link back to the Foundations PBworks wikipage, a link to a lesson on complex numbers, and a link that will contain information about preparing for the Minnesota Teacher Licensure Examination (MTLE) in mathematics.
A person will sometimes forget something that he or she is not continuously exposed to. From academic research by Wixted: “Traditional theories of forgetting are wedded to the notion that cueoverload interference procedures (often involving the A-B, A-C list-learning paradigm) capture the most important elements of forgetting in everyday life. However, findings from a century of work in psychology, psychopharmacology, and neuroscience converge on the notion that such procedures may pertain mainly to forgetting in the laboratory and that everyday forgetting is attributable to an altogether different form of interference. According to this idea, recently formed memories that have not yet had a chance to consolidate are vulnerable to the interfering force of mental activity and memory formation (even if the interfering activity is not similar to the previously learned material). “(Wixted, 2004 p.1)
What research tells us is that interference dampens our memory. For a student a summer vacation will interfere with the retention of trigonometry learned the previous school year. Web2.0 tools can serve as an interface for students to brush up on math. Hopefully this site will help with “spreading activation” and “retrieval.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 252) Spreading activation is the “process of searching for and finding information in long-term memory.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 252). In this age of technology, Web2.0 tools will help make math meaningful. As Woolfolk says, “Perhaps the best single method for helping students learn is to make each lesson as meaningful as possible.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 253)
To be licensed as a teacher in the state of Minnesota a teacher must be able to use various instructional strategies. The indicators for instructional strategies to be assessed are spelled out in Standard 4 of the Standards of Effective Practice Portfolio Competency Grid. Standard 4K states a teacher should “use educational technology to broaden student knowledge about technology, to deliver instructions to students at different levels and paces, and to stimulate advance levels of learning.” (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011). The use of Web 2.0 tools may help to achieve standard 4K. Ten of the Standards of Effective Practice use the word “technology”: 2H, 3R, 4K, 4L, 6K, 7H, 8E, 8N, 9M, and 10M. (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011). From the MN Department of Education Framework document, “In the ideal classroom, instructors use three areas of core knowledge, along with best practice, to fully engage students in learning through the use of technology. The three knowledge areas are:
The instructor's knowledge of specific course content (i.e., mathematics)
The instructor's knowledge of technology
The instructor's knowledge of pedagogy. “ (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011)
Teachers could use a Web2.0 tools to engage and educate students. A teacher could design curriculum that applies to specific outcomes. The teachers could also use other collaborative sites like Diigo to gather information to help in lesson planning.
Given that Web2.0 tools are a "tool" for learning then Web2.0 tools do have application in Minnesota classrooms. However, Web2.0 tools should not be used only for the sake of using technology. Rather, Web2.0 tools should be used for a specific learning outcome. The state of Minnesota does not collect data on Web2.0 use in the classroom. (Sheridan, 2011)
There are many ways to reach all the diverse learners and one way is through Web2.0 tools. There are other tools also that a teacher may use, such as: Smartboards, guest speakers, pencil and paper, and ipods or iphone. These techniques and many others help students use their imagination to develop creative learning projects. Group work could incorporate the collaborative nature of Web2.0 tools which also lends itself to constructivism. (Bower, Hedberg, and Kuswara, 2010) Distance learning is also a good venue for Web2.0 tools. In light of global warming and cost effectiveness, many corporations in order to cut back on travel have resorted to Web2.0 tools for on-line meetings. (Andriole, 2010 p.78). Likewise, students should be taught with sustainability and global warming in mind.
For some students the Web2.0 tools may not be appropriate: those who do not yet have the literacy. (Asselin and Moayeri, 2011). The “digital divide of physical internet access has evolved into a divide that includes differences in skills to use the internet”.(van Deursen and van Dijk, 2011, p.908). If Web 2.0 tools are to be useful then students need to acquire the proficiency in the tool. Proficiency may include not only operational and formal internet skills, but information and strategic internet skills as well. (van Deursen and van Dijk, 2011, p.908). In other words, not only is the student learning the Web2.0 tool, the student is also learning the content, knowledge and any cognitive skills to meaningful process the content.
The proficiency of a particular Web2.0 tool could be assessed through a project like this one. A Web2.0 tool is used to present information, for example a wikipage to help brush up on math. One question for assessment could be, “What tool is used as a bookmarking tool and which paint brush icon takes you there?” (Answer: Diigo and the aqua paintbrush.)
Given that each student has working knowledge of the Web2.0 tool, a performance assessment could also be given so that the student understands the content knowledge presented through the Web2.0 tool. For example, if student missed a math class or wants to review a particular concept, the student could link into a lecture-capture video of the math class and then be given a worksheet to assess the student’s understanding of the lesson.
In conclusion, Web2.0 tools remain emerging and dynamic and with experience an educator could learn to use a tool or tools in the classroom along with other technologies to reach all students. Detailed information on specific applications can be found by asking individual educators who curtail the Web2.0 tool to meet the learning outcome. Colleagues help each other develop Web2.0 applications. Colleagues may find this information using Web2.0 such as Diigo.
The open-ended nature of Web2.0 tools allows students to nurture imaginations. Web2.0 tools help distribute information that may have otherwise not been shared because of the constraints in distributing the information. In the past people published books. Today people also blog. Web2.0 tools could be used as a mediator to exchange and refine ideas collaboratively through time and distance.
29 November, 2011
Blyn Holt
Bemidji State University
Educational Psychology ED-5350
Foundations of American Education ED-5100
Abstract:
The use of Web2.0 tools gives teachers and students a way to engage and create while learning. The Brush Up on Math wikipage was created to help students refresh their memories on math concepts that may have been forgotten. It is to be used as a collaborative reference tool. The Web2.0 tools used on this project are Wikispaces, PBworks, Diigo and Voicethread. The justification for this project is based on Standards of Effective Practice for licensing Minnesota teachers. Research has also supported use of Web2.0 tools, especially for distance learning and collaborative learning.
Although math is all around us it is not something that students consciously use every day. This wikipage gives resources for students to review math concepts that they may have forgotten due to a lapse in use. A wikipage is an editable web page sharing information. The particular lesson plan addressed on this wikipage is complex numbers. The other Web2.0 tools incorporated on this site are a link to Diigo, bookmarking site that contains links to other useful sites to review math concepts, a link to a wikispace page explaining the justification for this project, and a link to voicethread.com containing a bibliography of Blyn Holt, my nom de cyperspace. A voice thread is audible way to share information and receive feedback. There is also a link back to the Foundations PBworks wikipage, a link to a lesson on complex numbers, and a link that will contain information about preparing for the Minnesota Teacher Licensure Examination (MTLE) in mathematics.
A person will sometimes forget something that he or she is not continuously exposed to. From academic research by Wixted:
“Traditional theories of forgetting are wedded to the notion that cueoverload interference procedures (often involving the A-B, A-C list-learning paradigm)
capture the most important elements of forgetting in everyday life. However, findings from a century of work in psychology, psychopharmacology, and neuroscience converge on the notion that such procedures may pertain mainly to forgetting in the laboratory and that everyday forgetting is attributable to an altogether different form of interference. According to this idea, recently formed memories that have not yet had a chance to consolidate are vulnerable to the interfering force of mental activity and memory formation (even if the interfering activity is not similar to the previously learned material). “(Wixted, 2004 p.1)
What research tells us is that interference dampens our memory. For a student a summer vacation will interfere with the retention of trigonometry learned the previous school year. Web2.0 tools can serve as an interface for students to brush up on math. Hopefully this site will help with “spreading activation” and “retrieval.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 252) Spreading activation is the “process of searching for and finding information in long-term memory.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 252). In this age of technology, Web2.0 tools will help make math meaningful. As Woolfolk says, “Perhaps the best single method for helping students learn is to make each lesson as meaningful as possible.” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 253)
To be licensed as a teacher in the state of Minnesota a teacher must be able to use various instructional strategies. The indicators for instructional strategies to be assessed are spelled out in Standard 4 of the Standards of Effective Practice Portfolio Competency Grid. Standard 4K states a teacher should “use educational technology to broaden student knowledge about technology, to deliver instructions to students at different levels and paces, and to stimulate advance levels of learning.” (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011). The use of Web 2.0 tools may help to achieve standard 4K. Ten of the Standards of Effective Practice use the word “technology”: 2H, 3R, 4K, 4L, 6K, 7H, 8E, 8N, 9M, and 10M. (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011). From the MN Department of Education Framework document,
“In the ideal classroom, instructors use three areas of core knowledge, along with best practice, to fully engage students in learning through the use of technology. The three knowledge areas are:
Teachers could use a Web2.0 tools to engage and educate students. A teacher could design curriculum that applies to specific outcomes. The teachers could also use other collaborative sites like Diigo to gather information to help in lesson planning.
Given that Web2.0 tools are a "tool" for learning then Web2.0 tools do have application in Minnesota classrooms. However, Web2.0 tools should not be used only for the sake of using technology. Rather, Web2.0 tools should be used for a specific learning outcome. The state of Minnesota does not collect data on Web2.0 use in the classroom. (Sheridan, 2011)
There are many ways to reach all the diverse learners and one way is through Web2.0 tools. There are other tools also that a teacher may use, such as: Smartboards, guest speakers, pencil and paper, and ipods or iphone. These techniques and many others help students use their imagination to develop creative learning projects. Group work could incorporate the collaborative nature of Web2.0 tools which also lends itself to constructivism. (Bower, Hedberg, and Kuswara, 2010) Distance learning is also a good venue for Web2.0 tools. In light of global warming and cost effectiveness, many corporations in order to cut back on travel have resorted to Web2.0 tools for on-line meetings. (Andriole, 2010 p.78). Likewise, students should be taught with sustainability and global warming in mind.
For some students the Web2.0 tools may not be appropriate: those who do not yet have the literacy. (Asselin and Moayeri, 2011). The “digital divide of physical internet access has evolved into a divide that includes differences in skills to use the internet”.(van Deursen and van Dijk, 2011, p.908). If Web 2.0 tools are to be useful then students need to acquire the proficiency in the tool. Proficiency may include not only operational and formal internet skills, but information and strategic internet skills as well. (van Deursen and van Dijk, 2011, p.908). In other words, not only is the student learning the Web2.0 tool, the student is also learning the content, knowledge and any cognitive skills to meaningful process the content.
The proficiency of a particular Web2.0 tool could be assessed through a project like this one. A Web2.0 tool is used to present information, for example a wikipage to help brush up on math. One question for assessment could be, “What tool is used as a bookmarking tool and which paint brush icon takes you there?” (Answer: Diigo and the aqua paintbrush.)
Given that each student has working knowledge of the Web2.0 tool, a performance assessment could also be given so that the student understands the content knowledge presented through the Web2.0 tool. For example, if student missed a math class or wants to review a particular concept, the student could link into a lecture-capture video of the math class and then be given a worksheet to assess the student’s understanding of the lesson.
In conclusion, Web2.0 tools remain emerging and dynamic and with experience an educator could learn to use a tool or tools in the classroom along with other technologies to reach all students. Detailed information on specific applications can be found by asking individual educators who curtail the Web2.0 tool to meet the learning outcome. Colleagues help each other develop Web2.0 applications. Colleagues may find this information using Web2.0 such as Diigo.
The open-ended nature of Web2.0 tools allows students to nurture imaginations. Web2.0 tools help distribute information that may have otherwise not been shared because of the constraints in distributing the information. In the past people published books. Today people also blog. Web2.0 tools could be used as a mediator to exchange and refine ideas collaboratively through time and distance.
References:
Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business Impact of Web 2.0 Technologies. Communications Of The ACM, 53(12), 67-79. doi:10.1145/1859204.1859225. Retrieved November 18,2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.bsuproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/detail?sid=5f10c2d2-4ca8-4ff2-8a76-c21f65e2f407%40sessionmgr110&vid=8&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=55618668
Asselin, M., & Moayeri, M. (2011). The Participatory Classroom: Web 2.0 in the Classroom. Australian Journal Of Language & Literacy, 34(2), 45. Retrieved November 18,2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.bsuproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=113&sid=5f10c2d2-4ca8-4ff2-8a76-c21f65e2f407%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=61967047
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177-198. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.518811. Retrieved 11/17/2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.bsuproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=113&sid=5f10c2d2-4ca8-4ff2-8a76-c21f65e2f407%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=55053956
Minnesota Department of Education. (2011). Retrieved 11/18/11 from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Teacher_Support/Educator_Licensing/Licensure_Via_Portfolio/Forms_Templates_Grids/017834
Minnesota Departement of Education. (2011). Retrieved 11/18/11 from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Learning_Support/School_Technology/Tech_Toolkit/Curriculum_Tech_Integ/index.html
Sheridan, A., (2011). Minnesota Department of Education - School Technology., 18 November 2011, 10:45am phone call.
van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774. Retrieved October 17,2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.bsuproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/detail?vid=21&hid=113&sid=5f10c2d2-4ca8-4ff2-8a76-c21f65e2f407%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=65220537
Wixted, J. T. (2004). THE PSYCHOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE OF FORGETTING. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 235-269. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141555. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.bsuproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1cea810e-f23b-450d-b1b6-61aea401f936%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&hid=126.
Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.